American Elections '08

[Vatican Assassin]

some one has to clean up those shit hole countries every one else left in shambles after colonization.

clean up is a saying we have over here for take control over. the IMF and World Banks perform the same exact roles as Colonialism, without the risk of revolt. We use economics instead of bayonets and its a hole lot easier. Just find one corrupt guy to be king (not really hard to find someone who wants to be the only non-poor, empowered person in the country). Then print money out of thin-air and "loan" it to him in order to build a dam. 5 years later, due to corruption (which you were counting on) the dam is about half way built, the artificial lake is polluted, and the country is unable to pay back the loan, in fact they need more money to finish and maintain the dam. In exchange for another loan, the IMF gets control of the river, rights to build an ore mine on it, and receives favorable trade rights for the next 99 years.

So, as in colonialism, we get what we want, resources and labor to extract them. But where as before, the colonial empire was always obviously to blame, now the fort is gone and replaced by the corrupt king. Now all of the native's hatred is displaced onto its own king, and if they are aware enough, on some multi-national league they don't know how to find or how to defend itself against.

Its the same thing the mafia does. When they give out a loan, they don't want it to be paid back. If it is, ok then, they get good interest. If it isn't, then they get the laundry store or bar or whatever actual capital they can get their hands on. The IMF can print and loan out all the money it wants, what it gets in return is neo-colonialism.

[Heroin Bob]

Don't want to start one of those american vs world threads, so don't, but it is only natural to care about what happens in a country that likes to act all over the world.

some one has to clean up those shit hole countries every one else left in shambles after colonization.

[Galleleo]

We have something called the stemwijzer over here (translated VoteMatch), anyway you can use that to see which of the parties fit your views best by answering a bunch of statements that are most prevalent in that election period and stuff. And now they have put one online for the US elections so you can check which Candidate suits you best.

For me its John Edwards closely followed by Barrack Obama. All the republicans are far behind but I could have told you that without taking a test.

Here is the English version: VoteMatch

[Mantra-Slider]

man, you should read the tao te ching

verse 57 is particularly salient

wow I love you Jerome

[PaulOakenfold]

The debate last night was very wild! This was posted in trash talk, woops!

http://forums.trenchwars.org/showpos...9&postcount=52
http://forums.trenchwars.org/showpos...0&postcount=53
http://forums.trenchwars.org/showpos...1&postcount=54

[Epinephrine]

The UN general assembly is pretty useless, although it does provide a peaceful forum for everyone to say their piece. The security council is marginally useful in the fact that it provides a bit of shame to marginally restrain the great powers (even Bush tried his best to get UNSC approval for Iraq).

But many other parts of the UN are a success. UNICEF, UNHCR, WHO, the UN's humanitarian work, and some things like election monitoring and helping to set up governments (i.e. East Timor) are uniquely things which only the UN has the legitimacy to do. The UN was a great way to tie together various global agencies into one umbrella organization although I know the WHO is trying to be more independent.

[Cops]

the world bank/IMF forces african countries to grow export foods instead of food for their own sustenance in order to pay back debt (the loans are taken out with implicit "economic planning" and "structuring" clauses for the "best interests", so they don't have a choice - but hey equality before freedom right)

"in-ability to compete in a global market" doesn't really hold anyone back, but the in-ability to develop a local economy does. this is a key problem with socialist ideology: the myth of "collective security", that as long as we focus on the "best interests" of the "whole", then the suffering or sacrifice of individual parts is ok. because you need a local economy to develop the basic economic infrastructure even needed to make trade profitable. this isn't a moral argument or an idealist argument, this is "world economics".

How can you compete in a global economy when you can't support your own people, I pretty much agree with you. Flourishing economies have developed in parts of Africa from groups of women who have aids but still find ways to provide themselves with food, money, shelter. I remember reading about a group of women who actually created caskets and were doing pretty well at selling them, I think it's sad but also good that at least some small economies are blooming in these countries. Jamaica has an amazing dairy industry but the cost of importing powdered milk is a lot cheaper so the business just ends up dumping a lot of milk per day. The fresh milk has a lot more nutrients and is a lot better for you but still people can't afford it, just like people in Haiti can't afford to feed their own people because American rice is a fraction of the cost of Haitian rice, which grows in abundance in Haiti.

the UN is a stupid debate really because it's not like the UN actually does anything, someday people will realize the joke and it'll just kind of go away, but institutions like the World Bank and IMF have managed to keep third world countries in a continuous cycle of debt and suffering

Watch life and debt, it's an awesome biography about the world bank and the IMF. Both institutions are useless and cause more harm than any good they actually do, the good still not shown to me. I still think the U.N is best described as a 'systematic system that doesn't work' , The UN fails a lot, but like I've said before when it fails this it's usually our fault. I've also seen the positive work the UN has done by increasing foreign aid to .35% more than what they usually give, trying to intervene in Rwanda as well as other countries. Rwanda was a joke, but the world wasn't willing to 'actually stop a genocide', even when the UN was pleading for countries to commit to helping, no one would. The UN goals are ambitious but the organization does do a lot of good things for people all over the world. We only hear about how the UNEF wasn't allowed troops in Rwanda, not how the organization saves millions of people and works towards stabilizing local self productive economies.

If you've ever got some time, read 'Race Against Time' by Stephen Lewis which are a set of lectures on his experiences in Africa, being part of the UN, as well as being a Canadian politician. The book might be a bit stagnant at times but it's un-fucking believable the amount of things he has done when he was part of the UN. Stephen Lewis is the United-Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. If ever you wanted to see just what the UN has done and is trying to do you should really pick up a copy of this book, the amount of bureaucracy bogs down this organization more than it's actual parimetres that it must adhere to.

[Epinephrine]

man, you should read the tao te ching

verse 57 is particularly salient

It's an interesting read, but something written 2000 years ago when laws were made by kings by edict instead of agreed upon by people really does not apply to today's world. It's like telling modern day doctors to follow the Hippocratic oath.

[Jerome Scuggs]

The best way to achieve such a thing would be via world organizations, organizations that not only did America have a hand in creating, but which espouse the very ideals that America professes to believe in. These organizations are only able to use their power and legitimacy and the plain force of peer pressure to make people behave better, they also give the ideals some teeth to show that the world will not stand for atrocities.

man, you should read the tao te ching

verse 57 is particularly salient

[Jerome Scuggs]

The problem is that countries have done everything they've had to do to better their country but the only thing that's holding them back is subsidies and an in-ability to compete in a global market.

the world bank/IMF forces african countries to grow export foods instead of food for their own sustenance in order to pay back debt (the loans are taken out with implicit "economic planning" and "structuring" clauses for the "best interests", so they don't have a choice - but hey equality before freedom right)

"in-ability to compete in a global market" doesn't really hold anyone back, but the in-ability to develop a local economy does. this is a key problem with socialist ideology: the myth of "collective security", that as long as we focus on the "best interests" of the "whole", then the suffering or sacrifice of individual parts is ok. because you need a local economy to develop the basic economic infrastructure even needed to make trade profitable. this isn't a moral argument or an idealist argument, this is "world economics".

the global/local debate is always muddied because there are two forms of globalization that are discussed in mainstream, but it's weird that noone ever makes a distinction between them since they're often confused. there's the economic level, where the term merely represents the concept of the rapidly developing global economies, and then there's a political level. as far as a global economy, i see it hard to argue given its inevitability, but then you have "globalization" on a political level, like vati argues - these global, supranational bodies (some NAFTA organizations, the UN, the world bank, etc).

the UN is a stupid debate really because it's not like the UN actually does anything, someday people will realize the joke and it'll just kind of go away, but institutions like the World Bank and IMF have managed to keep third world countries in a continuous cycle of debt and suffering

[Epinephrine]

I don't think his major point was that soldiers shouldn't be held accountable. I think he is saying that American soldiers shouldn't have to take orders from Non American Nations or Leagues. You conceded the racist part, which I noticed, but then you brought up his racism again, so you must still be thinking about it at least a little bit.

The funny thing is that American idealism and power has for the last century put America in a place to dictate to the entire world how people should lead their lives. If people don't agree with America, their governments have been toppled, wars have been started and cruise missiles fired.

It's a nice ideal that Americans shouldn't have to answer to foreign powers, but one of the forgotten things is just how involved America is with EVERYONE ELSE. For instance, the recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto was originally made PM of Pakistan after she lobbied her friends in Washington to force the President of Pakistan to declare her Prime Minister after that 1988 election.


The fact is, there's a growing acceptance that perhaps blunt tactics like toppling governments and starting wars for America to get it's way is perhaps not the best way to do things. This is one of Ron Paul's ideas that I actually agree with. But the thing is, people in America still do like the idea that ideals like freedom and liberty can be spread, and that is the primary reason why Bush was reelected as president. Although the man has been discredited, the idea that America is a bastion of freedom for the world has not died in the hearts of most Americans.

The best way to achieve such a thing would be via world organizations, organizations that not only did America have a hand in creating, but which espouse the very ideals that America professes to believe in. These organizations are only able to use their power and legitimacy and the plain force of peer pressure to make people behave better, they also give the ideals some teeth to show that the world will not stand for atrocities.

The entire point of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice is to bring people to justice. It is to have a court and a force with enough legitimacy and power throughout the world so that people who do not abide by the universally accepted rules (rules which are very clearly set out and generally agreeable to anyone in a free society who has read them) are prosecuted. These people must be so blatantly breaking rules and so blatantly allowed to be getting away with things like genocide that there is absolutely no recourse but to use the force of the world upon them.

The very basic rules of these organizations is that they prosecute people whom their home country ignores. If the US were part of this organization, the rules would and could easily be tweaked to match that of US law, such that if someone is breaking the rules of the ICC and ICJ (which are very general rules for only the absolute most heinous of crimes) they would already be falling under breaking US law and thus be prosecuted. If they were still getting away with it, I fail to see how Americans like Heavensent who already think the government is corrupt and willing to let people get away with anyone would be against having an even greater body be able to say 'hey wait a second... genocide, bad idea you will be prosecuted'.


The real 'fear' by the fearmongers has always been that other nations who had a beef to pick with America would randomly start charging any American with war crimes just to try and punish the country. The reason why this wouldn't matter is because, that can already happen even if the US were not part of it (so why not be part of it and shape it's policy), and the second reason is the US would have to actually give up this person or else the only way to get this person would be for other countries to launch a military campaign to grab this person which is laughable at best. Rest assured, no one is going to bother with some small fry American soldier they don't like, and absolutely no one is stupid enough to seriously try and prosecute someone powerful in the US that wasn't already prosecuted (i.e. prosecute George Bush for war crimes and try and see if they don't get laughed off by America). But I digress.

[Kolar]

would you rather go into surgery with a doctor who is an expert but hates jews, or with a real nice guy who doesn't know what he's doing. ok if you aren't jewish then. i don't know what the senator knows, but I'm pretty sure that as a senator he knows a little bit more than you, I, or David Duke. If you want to disregard the statements of racists, you're censoring a lot of world history. long story short, you still have to listen to and verify statements of extremists.

A skill in medicine is different from this issue. A person who believes domestically that hate groups are okay is not of right mind, on issues pertaining to ethics and politics I would be less inclined to verify much less believe their statements. Would you be more or less inclined to listen to a philosophy professor if he were racist? Think about it the other way, would you be more or less inclined to listen to a professor of physics if he were racist. The latter I believe yes because it doesn't concern his profession, he still might be a shitty person but it doesn't effect his ability to postulate or convey information.
As a leader and a politician I believe his views on ethics and morality are of issue, and if he is showing a weakness by being racist then his ability as a politician is in question. Thus I would be less likely to listen to him or care what he thinks.

[Cops]

That's a pretty simplistic view of poverty. You need to include a reasonable government that can at the very least get things done (low enough corruption that stuff gets done), a reasonable guarantee of personal safety so that people can invest in more than a subsistence living without worrying that they might have to leave at any point (due to wartorn regions, genocides and so on endemic to a lot of the world), and a reasonable guarantee of health in terms of health care, sanitation and diseases.

Exactly what the UNEF tries to do, stop genocide and increase the standard of living.

Once you have that, you need some sort of guarantee for personal property unless we're going the communism route which requires a very powerful government. You also need reasonable educational levels so that people can use some basic knowledge to improve their lives, and then you need to access to cheap and powerful technology which can help the poorest of the poor (i.e. efficient water pumps, efficient lighting so people can do things at night, efficient stoves so they aren't burning ridiculous amounts of wood).

Once you have that, then it's time to stop systematically beating down on these countries by things such as agricultural subsidies, and foreign imposed debts and wars.

Wont happen, it's how we as countries stay on top and have power over other countries. We're deathly afraid of letting these countries compete on an equal playing field because given the chance they would out-produce us, at least per capita. If a country notices a seizable opportunity to finally advance their country to a level of our own then they will grasp that opportunity and you would see us get slaughtered (not literally). The problem is we have everything, and they will fight for everything.

Finally once you have that, you can start to think about liberalizing trade, lowering tariffs (once local industry is strong enough to support itself), and so on, and then standard of living will really shoot up.

Challenges countries face - Competing in a global market, making money off their products when it's a lot cheaper to just import goods from around the world.

ex; Jamaica's Milk industry is still dead, Haiti still imports rice.

I was only trying to give a short answer on how world economics is in correlation to world economics. The problem is that countries have done everything they've had to do to better their country but the only thing that's holding them back is subsidies and an in-ability to compete in a global market.

[Cops]

I don't think his major point was that soldiers shouldn't be held accountable. I think he is saying that American soldiers shouldn't have to take orders from Non American Nations or Leagues. You conceded the racist part, which I noticed, but then you brought up his racism again, so you must still be thinking about it at least a little bit.

What orders? America can veto anything they don't want to be apart of, if they feel that a war is unjustified they can just say no to it.

He hasn't even proven to me that the U.N is destroying America, he has shown me that two congressman with 'questionable' beliefs believe that the U.N is destroying America. He's also made me watch a lot of crappy videos that anyone could have posted, that offer no educational background in the field. If someone's got distorted views about racism and civil rights then I'm prone to thinking they have more distorted views, but then again I gave that man the benefit of the doubt due to his experience in the American government. I let his shady views slide, and he still couldn't muster enough solid evidence to prove to anyone that the U.N is destroying America.

Even you've said pulling out of the U.N is a bad idea.

[Epinephrine]

That's a pretty simplistic view of poverty. You need to include a reasonable government that can at the very least get things done (low enough corruption that stuff gets done), a reasonable guarantee of personal safety so that people can invest in more than a subsistence living without worrying that they might have to leave at any point (due to wartorn regions, genocides and so on endemic to a lot of the world), and a reasonable guarantee of health in terms of health care, sanitation and diseases.

Once you have that, you need some sort of guarantee for personal property unless we're going the communism route which requires a very powerful government. You also need reasonable educational levels so that people can use some basic knowledge to improve their lives, and then you need to access to cheap and powerful technology which can help the poorest of the poor (i.e. efficient water pumps, efficient lighting so people can do things at night, efficient stoves so they aren't burning ridiculous amounts of wood).

Once you have that, then it's time to stop systematically beating down on these countries by things such as agricultural subsidies, and foreign imposed debts and wars.

Finally once you have that, you can start to think about liberalizing trade, lowering tariffs (once local industry is strong enough to support itself), and so on, and then standard of living will really shoot up.